ESCUCHA

1. Build a network of school leaders who are able to increase their schools' success with boys and young men of color;

2. Provide professional development, promising practices and other resources to support and strengthen our network of school leaders as a learning

community;

3. Promote the concept of schools that are intentionally designed to ensure educational success for their male students of color and the reality of

COSEBOC Award Schools that have met this goal and whose male students of color demonstrate success (COSEBOC, 2017a, Vision section).

Black Male Development Symposium. To address personally mediated

challenges of learning about, and approaches to support the development of Black males, the Black Male Development Symposium (BMDS) was established by Chicago’s Third World Press, an African-American publishing house in Chicago. The mission of BMDS

(2017) is to promote conversations on the state of Black males in the United States. The first symposium occurred in 2004, followed by an annual conference each year, with over 1,000 attendees joining the symposium. Every year, the inescapable reality of the state of conditions and the reality of Black males are discussed, as well as strategies for

community survival and empowerment. Black males 12-15 years of age have represented the largest group in attendance at the symposium over the last 8 years (BMDS, 2017). The symposium offers workshops in four distinct areas, which are presented by

individuals and groups who are selected through a national competition and request for papers. The four areas or “pathways” include (a) investigate, (b) create, (c) relate, and (d) elevate. These pathways focus on the following topics:

1. Overcoming the school to prison pipeline;

2. Advance your SWAG (soulful wisdom and genius); 3. Family and relationship;

4. Health, wellness, and spirituality;

5. Winning the future through economic development. (BMDS, 2017, Pathways/Workshops section)

Black Male Summit. At the internalized level, each year the Inclusive Excellence Department at the University of Akron hosts the Black Male Summit, which is a 1-day symposium to equip high school and college students, educators, counselors,

administrators, and community leaders with the necessary tools needed to better serve Ohio’s African American male students. Traditionally, the summit draws students, educators, and lecturers to discuss networking and race relations, promote healthy

(University of Akron Inclusive Excellence, 2017). The symposium provides training from leading national experts in the African American community on educational

achievement. The symposium provides best practices to address achievement concerns by showcasing leading initiatives. Two tracks are offered for the audience to attend:

 Track One: College and Community Track, offered to the greater Akron and Ohio area;

 Track Two: Black Male Summit Academy is offered to high school and university students. (University of Akron Inclusive Excellence, 2017). Black Male Initiative Summit. In 2009, the University of Denver (DU) Center for Multicultural Excellence established the Black Male Initiative Summit (BMIS), addressing the need to provide “intentional and purposeful college access programs and initiatives for African American Black male students” (Varaxy, Teck, & Brame, 2014, p. 2). As a pipeline initiative, young Black male students in the 6th through 12th grades and beyond develop a knowledge base to understand the importance of attending college, developing a college-going mindset, and gain resources to remain academically driven and successful throughout their education journey, while being connected to a higher education environment and mentors (Varaxy et al., 2014). In 2010, BMIS held its first 1- day leadership conference, with an annual theme to promote resilience, advocacy, and social change, and guide conversations to inform participants. Since the inception of BMIS, over 500 Black male youth have participated in the leadership conference (Varaxy et al., 2014).

Through MBK initiatives, which highlight a need to focus on the achievement and life experiences of Black male students, programs, such as those mentioned above,

provide students with access to resources, aid in their development as African American males, and help connect them to positive role models. Black male students also receive mentoring support through in-kind contributions from committed community members. Likewise, educators also receive support and resources necessary to meet the needs of Black males in schools through community and school partnerships and from local and national initiatives.

Conclusion: “A Gardener’s Tale” Meets “Growing Roses in Concrete”

Tupac Shakur (2009) wrote,

Did you hear about the rose that grew from a crack in the concrete? Proving nature’s laws wrong it learned to walk without having feet. Funny it seems but by keeping its dreams, it learned to breathe fresh air. Long live the rose that grew from concrete when no one else even cared. (p. 2)

Duncan-Andrade (2009) described the metaphorical poem by Tupac Shakur emphasizing successful young people as roses who emerge out of defiance from the socially toxic environments as “roses that grow from concrete” (p. 186). Similar to the allegory, “A Gardener’s Tale,” the concrete environment the roses grew in is symbolic of the most deplorable conditions for roses to grow in, because concrete is devoid of

nutrients, often situated in environments where pollutants would threaten the very existence of their survival (Duncan-Andrade, 2009). Duncan-Andrade contended that hope is required to grow roses in concrete. To grow roses beyond the toxicity of their environment, Duncan-Andrade argued to end the existence of false hope, which

when teaching urban students, thus growing roses despite the environmental conditions in which they live. The two categorical forms of hope, false hope and critical hope, are discussed below.

False Hope and Critical Hope

False hope, the enemy of hope, is pervasive and highly peddled in many urban schools (Duncan-Andrade, 2009). Duncan-Andrade (2009) contended that the prevalence of false hope is ever common in the education system: The evidence of this atrocity is realized when the achievement gap of Black males remains a persistent challenge, similar to institutionalized racism. False hope is comprised of “mythical hope,” “hokey hope,” and “hope deferred,” all of which operate independently of each other; yet false hope maintains a dismal and eroding hope that educators must resist (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Abandoning false hope. Mythical hope, at the level of institutional racism, is what Duncan-Andrade (2009) posited represents the normalized structures within the educational system that mystify the historical, societal, and cultural pasts that have led to barriers students encounter. Mythical hope refers to the creation of systematic structures of standardized learning, grade level expectations, and assessments on state and national standards that promote a mythical view of equity and educational progress for all

students. Yet, the existence of an academic achievement gap among disproportionate groups of students and their White and Asian counterparts reinforces the mythical image that the educational playing field is equal (Blanchett, Mumford, & Beachum, 2005; Duncan-Andrade, 2009; Lee, 2002). Educators who demonstrate a mythical hope negate their responsibility for contributing to student underachievement by simply placing the blame of missed opportunities to learn on the student (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Hokey hope, at the personally mediated level, is the sense of false caring that educators unconsciously express to students by failing to build meaningful and

significant relationships with students. Hokey-hope educators knowingly or unknowingly endorse a belief that students are solely responsible for their own learning by lacing up their own “boot straps,” thereby reinforcing the myth of meritocracy (Carter, 2008). Hokey-hope educators who adhere to this boot strap mentality error in the relinquishment of their responsibility to ensure every student learns and is provided with an equal and equitable opportunity to learn.

Hope deferred, at the internalized level of racism, results in the chronic stress and negative educational experiences Black male students encounter that impact their ability to access opportunities to learn. Hope deferred occurs when educators continuously promote a distant future of hope for students and fail to provide students with the necessary tools to navigate through their present-day circumstances and educational challenges (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Embracing critical hope. Critical hope, the enemy of hopelessness, rejects false hope and demands that collective and active struggle must occur to challenge inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair (Duncan-Andrade, 2009). Educators must possess critical hope, which is comprised of “material hope,” “Socratic hope,” and “audacious hope”; each is interrelated and interdependent of the others (Duncan- Andrade, 2009).

Material hope requires that educators provide students with quality teaching and relevant opportunities to learn that are academically rigorous and able to produce student growth—to scaffold, differentiate, and challenge students to think while connecting

learning to relevant life experiences. Teachers implementing material hope empower students to develop their voice within the education system (Freire, 1970). In contrast, educators who simplify learning do not instill a desire to learn within students, rescue them from achieving true academic success, and diminish their opportunity to learn—all of which are detrimental to the material hope students must possess (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Socratic hope is based on the philosophical views of Socrates wherein the “unexamined life is not worth living.” Socratic hope embodies the examined realities, experiences, and lives of students and teachers, while forming deeply connected, trusting, and sometimes painful relationships whereby teachers view student failure as their own personal failure and engage in a self-critique to ensure student success. Teachers who exude Socratic hope understand the cliché of showing students you care rather than telling them, thus increasing opportunities to develop teacher-student relationships at the personally mediated level.

Audacious hope legitimizes suffering but stands boldly in solidarity, demanding that we reconnect and radically heal in our collective pain, suffering, victories, and successes. Audacious hope negates individualism and promotes a belief in humanism and the “collective struggle” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009). As humans, we experience celebratory moments and challenging situations. Educators who utilize audacious hope in the urban classroom setting look beyond the manifestations of student behaviors as negative but rather, challenge students to move beyond painful experiences toward opportunities to cope.

In closing, educators must be willing to meet the critical needs of Black males, increasing their ability to learn and access educational opportunities. Duncan-Andrade (2009) asserted that the mindsets of educators must improve from placing the blame on students’ racial makeup, socioeconomic status, educational background, or poor

academic preparation as the source of school failure. Smith (2002) believed that when teachers are able to identify and understand the underlying assumptions they have of African American students and their behaviors; these teachers will understand why they are not be able to engage them as learners. Smith contended that in order for teachers to reach African American students, teachers must identify with them through their

language, culture, and background. Because social and cultural differences may exist between students in urban schools and their teachers and administrators, teachers and administrators must understand that relational connections comprise a crucial element of effective instruction and the increasing of students’ opportunities to learn and achieve academic success.

The deficit and problematic challenges that exist for Black male students are well documented in research and in educational data. Unfortunately, remedies and approaches to improve the disparities for Black male students is largely missing in research. This doctoral research project will contribute to gaps in research literature on approaches school leaders can implement to promote equity for Black male students. This

autoethnographic research praxis project will share the lived experiences of one school leader who navigated through the three levels of racism to promote equity and improve the achievement of Black male students at a once chronically underperforming school.

Chapter Three. Methodology

The purpose of this study is to come to a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of the researcher as a school leader at a once failing school, implementing practices to change the trajectory of school failure for Black male students. This study seeks to understand the essence of the researcher’s lived experiences as a school leader. Whereas there are many alternative and traditional approaches of inquiry,

autoethnography has provided an in-depth understanding and explanation related to the experiences of the researcher as a school principal. Jones’s (2000) conceptual framework, three levels of racism: “A Gardener’s Tale,” has been used to examine how one school leader promoted equity for Black male students, ultimately, turning around a chronically underperforming school in 3 years. The goal of this research study is to examine how school leaders can become “active” agents of school change to promote the success of Black male students in school. The results of this research study should provide

recommendations school leaders can embrace to dismantle school systems and practices that hinder the success of Black male students in school.

This chapter offers a rationale for engaging in qualitative research methods, specifically autoethnography as the best suited approach for inquiry in this study. Next, I engage in my researcher positionality, which addresses my connection to conducting autoethnography as the focus for this research study. Then, I discuss the process for

gathering data, conducting research, and data analysis. Lastly, I provide an account for the trustworthiness, credibility, and potential limitations of this study.

Rationale for Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative research seeks to understand not only how people interpret their experiences and construct their world, but also the meaning they attribute to their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Creswell (2013) posited qualitative research is conducted to empower individuals, share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that exists between a researcher and study participants. Qualitative research can also contribute to the formation of public policy and can underwrite and inform decisions organizations and governments make based upon research conducted. In the education field, qualitative research draws upon concepts, models, and theories in educational psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, and sociology (Merriam, 1998).

Qualitative research approaches commonly found in the field of education include ethnography, autoethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case study. In qualitative research in education, data collection includes observations, interviews, and document analysis. Analysis results often specify reoccurring patterns, categories, and themes not leading toward substantive theory or grounded theory results. (Merriam, 2002). Merriam (2002) found that most researchers in the field of education have experiences with formal schooling, possess an interest in knowing more about the field, pursue improvements in educational practices, or seek to contribute to their knowledge base.

Autoethnographic Research

Autoethnography is a qualitative research approach that involves the researcher’s exploring her or his own personal experiences and relating those experiences to broader issues in the community through literature. Reed-Danahay (1997) described self-

ethnography as the connection of the vulnerable self—emotions, body, and spirit—to evocative stories. Ellis and Bochner (2000) defined autoethnography as the idea of “multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 739). Elaborating on this research approach, they described it as

An autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to cultural. Back and forth

autoethnographers gaze, first through an ethnographic wide-single lens, focusing outward on the social and cultural aspects of their personal experience; then, they look inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is moved by and may move through refract, and resist cultural interpretations. (p. 739)

Chang (2008) also described autoethnography as a “combination of cultural analysis and interpretation with narrative details” (p. 46). For Muncey (2010), autoethnography can be viewed as a connection between “multiple layers of

consciousness, the vulnerable self, the coherent self, the critiquing self in social contexts, the subversion of dominant discourses and the evocative potential” (p. 28).

In addition to defining autoethnography, Reed-Danahay (1997) believed that autoethnography is both an analytical and interpretative research approach (p. 2). For Muncey (2010), the two approaches to autoethnography are evocative and analytical. Evocative autoethnography captures the heart and the imagination of the reader by

sharing the researcher’s vulnerable self through descriptive details of the tensions between pain and the revelations of the researcher (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Mendez, 2013). Ellis and Bochner (2000) observed that evocative autoethnographies are confessional, emotional, therapeutic, creative, and unconventional. On the contrary, Anderson (2006) challenged the obscuring vision of autoethnography as only being emotional or evocative by emphasizing a paradigmatic view that autoethnography can be analytical and consistent with qualitative inquiry. Anderson (2006) offered five key features required to conduct analytical autoethnographic research that differ from evocative autoethnography:

1. “A full member in the research group or setting” (p. 373);

2. “Analytic reflexivity” wherein the researcher is aware of her or his influence on the data and throughout the research process;

3. “Visible in the researcher’s published texts and possesses analytical reflexivity” (p. 373);

4. “Dialogue with informants beyond the self” (p. 378);

5. Commitment by the researcher to the analytical research agenda, focused on improving theoretical understandings of the broader social phenomenon. Although the methods of autoethnography can vary between evocative and analytical, the origins of autoethnography stem from the field of anthropology, where anthropologists use storytelling and other genres of self-narration to engage in cultural analysis and interpretation (Chang, 2008). Although autoethnography is still an emerging research approach, it has been in existence since the 1970s (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Patton, 2015), first referenced by anthropologist Karl Heider who studied the Dani people

in 1975. Heider referred to autoethnography as the Dani’s “own” account of the study (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Later, in 1979, cultural anthropologist David Hayano is credited as the originator of the term “autoethnography,” referring to an analysis of one’s own life through the procedures of ethnography (Anderson, 2006; Chang, 2008; Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Since that time, many scholars, including Ellis and Bochner, began to challenge the limitations of social science’s ontological, epistemological, and axiological research perspectives regarding what constitutes “fact” and “truth,” critiquing paradigmatic views on research and how it is conducted (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Reed-Danahay, 1997). Such critiques led researchers to embrace autoethnography as a positive response to produce meaning, accessibility, and evocative research grounded in personal experiences (Ellis et al., 2011). Ellis et al. (2011) believed that research, such as autoethnography, should help readers become sensitized to understanding the meaning of experiences which often silences the voices of those marginalized by their experiences and cause others to “empathize with people who are different from [them]” (p. 274). In many cases, the voices of those conducting the research are silenced or hidden. In autoethnography, the voice of the researcher is no longer silenced, but revealed. For the purposes of this research study, the marginalized voice of the researcher has not been silenced or hidden in the research process.

Forthcoming in Chapter 3, I share my role as the researcher and my connection to this study, followed with a description of the data collection procedures and data analysis process, and concluding with a discussion of ethical considerations and limitations. The hope of this doctoral research praxis project for Chapter 4 is to tell the researcher’s story through a self-narrative.

Role of the Researcher